Spain's aviation safety agency has acknowledged that passengers affected by flight delays, cancellations and other disruptions may not always receive enough information about their rights or how to make a complaint.

The State Aviation Safety Agency (AESA) says that when operational problems occur at short notice, airlines tend to concentrate first on assisting affected passengers and reorganising flights. According to AESA, that can result in insufficient information about passenger rights and complaint procedures.

The agency says the issue is not limited to one airline and that complaints received by AESA show it can occur more broadly across the sector.

Airlines have an obligation to inform passengers

European passenger-rights rules require airlines to provide information about passengers' rights when flights are cancelled or when passengers are affected by significant delays or denied boarding.

Under Article 14 of Regulation 261/2004, airlines must provide written information setting out the applicable rules on compensation and assistance, as well as information about the relevant national enforcement body.

AESA's own annual report says informing passengers about their rights and the available complaint channels is one of its responsibilities.

The agency also states that passengers normally have to complain to the airline first. If the airline does not respond within one month, or the passenger considers the response inadequate, the passenger can then submit a complaint to AESA.

Delays and cancellations dominate complaints

AESA recorded 22,536 complaints in 2025 relating to the two European regulations covering passenger rights and assistance for people with reduced mobility.

Of these, 21,797 concerned incidents on flights from 2 June 2023 onward and were processed through the alternative dispute-resolution system. A further 739 related to earlier flights and were handled under the previous informative procedure.

Within the 21,797 cases covered by the newer procedure, delays accounted for 11,843 complaints and cancellations for 8,136.

There were also 1,346 cases involving denied boarding, 251 concerning class changes and 28 relating to passengers with reduced mobility.

The figures show that delays and cancellations accounted for the overwhelming majority of the RAL complaints received by AESA during the year.

AESA identifies information as a recurring problem

The agency's annual report goes beyond simply counting complaints.

AESA says the main causes of disputes were delays and cancellations and notes that passengers describing their incidents frequently referred to two problems: not being given information about their rights and not being told how to submit a complaint to the airline.

The report links this specifically to the airlines' obligations under Article 14 of Regulation 261/2004.

The finding is significant because the information is most important at the moment when a passenger has to decide what to do next.

A traveller who does not know that a complaint may be possible, or how to make it, may never begin the process.

A new system has made AESA decisions binding

There is an important change depending on when the flight disruption occurred.

For incidents on flights from 2 June 2023 onward, AESA uses the alternative dispute-resolution procedure.

The agency says its decisions under this system are binding on airlines. Once AESA issues a decision, the airline has one month to comply. If the airline does not satisfy the passenger's recognised rights within that period, the passenger can seek enforcement through the competent court.

This is different from the previous system, in which AESA's reports were informative rather than binding.

AESA does not track every dispute that reaches court

Despite the binding nature of the current procedure, AESA says its annual report does not contain a statistic showing how many decisions issued during 2025 were complied with within the one-month period.

The agency also does not have a figure showing how many cases in which an airline did not comply voluntarily subsequently went to court for enforcement.

That means the published AESA statistics do not provide a complete picture of what happens after an administrative decision when an airline does not pay or otherwise comply.

The gap is particularly relevant because some passenger disputes can continue beyond the administrative stage.

Iberia recorded the highest number in AESA's airline table

Iberia recorded 2,991 admitted RAL complaints in 2025 in AESA's airline breakdown.

In the table covering airlines with more than 200 complaints, plus an aggregate category for airlines with fewer than 200, those 2,991 cases represented 23.9% of the 12,521 complaints included.

Iberia represented 7.7% of passengers in the same statistical framework. Vueling accounted for 1,634 complaints, Air Europa 1,298, Ryanair 1,204 and Air Nostrum 1,185.

The comparison needs context.

The 23.9% figure is not Iberia's share of every RAL complaint received by AESA in 2025. It is the share within the specific airline table published in the report.

AESA's wider total for all RAL complaints was 21,797.

The numbers do not explain why Iberia appears so prominently

The difference between Iberia's share of complaints and its share of passengers is notable in AESA's statistics.

However, the data alone do not establish why that difference exists.

AESA's report itself does not attribute the figure to a particular cause, and complaint totals can be influenced by factors including the routes operated, the types of disruption experienced, passenger awareness and the number of travellers who decide to pursue a claim.

For that reason, the figures should be read as a record of complaints received by AESA, not as a finding that one particular airline is responsible for a particular level of disruption.

Many disputes never reach AESA

The AESA report also makes an important methodological point.

Passengers must generally complain to the airline before approaching AESA.

Some disputes are resolved directly between the passenger and airline and never reach the agency. Others may be taken to court or handled through other dispute-resolution mechanisms.

Those cases do not appear in AESA's annual complaint totals.

This means AESA's figures should not be treated as a complete count of all passenger complaints against airlines operating in Spain.

Not every delay or cancellation creates a compensation right

Another distinction is important for passengers.

A delay or cancellation does not automatically mean that financial compensation is due.

European Regulation 261/2004 provides rights to assistance and, in specified circumstances, compensation, but extraordinary circumstances can affect whether compensation is payable.

AESA's report specifically notes that some delays and cancellations are associated with circumstances outside the airline's control, including weather or air-traffic-management restrictions.

The existence of a complaint therefore does not itself establish that an airline has breached the passenger-rights rules.

What passengers should do after a disruption

The current AESA procedure begins with the airline.

Passengers affected by a delay, cancellation, denied boarding or another covered incident should first make a complaint to the airline or, where appropriate, the airport manager.

AESA recommends retaining the relevant documents and evidence connected with the journey and the disruption.

If the airline does not respond within the applicable period, or the passenger believes the response does not resolve the issue, the complaint can then be submitted to AESA.

The European rules also require airlines to provide information about passengers' rights in the circumstances covered by Regulation 261/2004.

AESA received a high volume of enquiries

The agency's role is not limited to formal complaints.

AESA also operates a passenger-advice service intended to provide information and assistance with incidents and complaints.

Its annual report says the high volume of complaints received in 2024 and 2025 required resources to be focused heavily on processing claims, and that the agency expanded web-based support for passenger queries.

The aim is to help passengers understand their rights and track the status of their cases.

The Ibiza connection

The issue has particular relevance for Ibiza because air travel is essential for both residents and visitors, especially during the busiest months of the year.

Previous disruption data cited in Ibiza reporting showed that 31% of passengers at Ibiza Airport were affected by delays or cancellations during 2024, according to AirHelp.

That figure is from 2024 and comes from a different methodology to AESA's complaint statistics, so the two datasets should not be directly combined or treated as measuring the same thing.

The distinction matters: AirHelp's figure concerns reported flight disruption, while AESA's figures concern passengers who ultimately pursued complaints within its regulatory remit.

What the current system means for passengers

The introduction of binding AESA decisions has changed the process for newer cases.

For flights affected from 2 June 2023 onward, AESA can issue a binding decision requiring an airline to meet rights recognised in the decision.

The airline then has one month to comply. If it does not, the passenger can request judicial enforcement.

This provides a different route from simply taking every dispute directly to court.

The remaining information gap

AESA's latest report simultaneously highlights an improvement in the system and an unresolved problem.

The newer RAL system gives passengers a binding administrative decision, but the agency acknowledges that passengers can still struggle to receive sufficient information immediately after an incident.

The agency also does not currently publish a figure showing how many of its binding decisions are complied with within the required month or how many ultimately proceed to judicial enforcement.

That leaves part of the passenger journey outside the published statistics.

What the 2025 figures show

AESA's 2025 data provides a detailed picture of the complaints reaching the agency:

22,536 total complaints under Regulations 261/2004 and 1107/2006.

21,797 RAL complaints concerning flights from 2 June 2023 onward.

11,843 RAL complaints relating to delays.

8,136 relating to cancellations.

1,346 involving denied boarding.

2,991 admitted RAL complaints recorded for Iberia in the airline table.

23.9% was Iberia's share of the 12,521 complaints included in that specific airline table, while its passenger share there was 7.7%.

A problem that starts at the airport

For passengers, the practical lesson is straightforward.

A flight disruption can create several separate issues: getting to the final destination, arranging meals or accommodation, obtaining an alternative flight and understanding whether compensation or reimbursement may apply.

The information provided during that disruption can determine whether a passenger knows what to do next.

AESA's latest findings show that, despite the legal information requirements already in place, insufficient information about rights and complaint procedures continues to appear in passenger disputes.

For travellers using Ibiza Airport, particularly during periods when disruptions are more common, knowing the procedure before a problem occurs can therefore be important.

The first step remains a complaint to the airline, followed, where appropriate, by a free complaint through AESA's passenger-rights procedure.

The rules have changed in recent years, but the basic issue identified by the regulator remains: passengers need clear information at the moment an aviation disruption occurs.